It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US tanks go in to Afghanistan

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


At least you will have a first hand account from one side in this conflict, but would you be willing to set aside your personal feelings and hear one from the other side seeking to kill your Nephews?

You'd need both to get the complete story.

Of course, you already know the story from the other side, right?

You got this enemy all figured out too, right?

In that case, let the bodies fall, and get-er-dun!




posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


At least you will have a first hand account from one side in this conflict, but would you be willing to set aside your personal feelings and hear one from the other side seeking to kill your Nephews?


You still haven't answered my question. How many average [Joe Afghans] have YOU spoken to?


You'd need both to get the complete story.


Well this true, this is why I read both sides of the arguments. I make up my own mind and not regurgitate whats been spoon fed by either side.


Of course, you already know the story from the other side, right?


I read and pay attention to both sides. Yes. That's how one learns. By paying attention. Discounting the BS and try to get down to the facts.


You got this enemy all figured out too, right?


Yes, Last I checked the Taliban were kicked to the streets by the Afghan Northern Alliance with the help of US/ NATO air power and they have been living in the hills of Afghanistan and bounce back and forth with ties in Pakistan. Who by the way have been aiding them and dragging their feet to fight them. Well, until recently now that the Taliban are getting serious in Pakistan.


In that case, let the bodies fall, and get-er-dun!


For someone who is trying desperately to come off as knowledgeable on the topic you sure do make some rather simple stereotypes.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

You still haven't answered my question. How many average [Joe Afghans] have YOU spoken to?


ZERO!

That is my story, and I will stand by it to the end.





Well this true, this is why I read both sides of the arguments. I make up my own mind and not regurgitate whats been spoon fed by either side.


Care to share with us some of these reading materials?

I would be fascinated by getting a look at what you've been reading from "the other side".



I read and pay attention to both sides. Yes. That's how one learns. By paying attention. Discounting the BS and try to get down to the facts.


See last comments above.



Yes, Last I checked the Taliban were kicked to the streets by the Afghan Northern Alliance with the help of US/ NATO air power and they have been living in the hills of Afghanistan and bounce back and forth with ties in Pakistan. Who by the way have been aiding them and dragging their feet to fight them. Well, until recently now that the Taliban are getting serious in Pakistan.


I really should rest my case here and cede to your Superior knowledge.




For someone who is trying desperately to come off as knowledgeable on the topic you sure do make some rather simple stereotypes.


I am not desperately trying to do anything here, seriously!

I'm not here to win popularity, make friends or collect stars and flags... In short, you completely missed the point, yet that is the point... and I could care less!

You win, and I gave you a star too!

edit on 19-11-2010 by Fractured.Facade because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
The US never provided the evidence to the Taliban to prove that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, and instead gave the Taliban an ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden before the invasion began.

We still have to see proof to this very day.

Sending in the tanks for an even larger massacre will only increase the number of new recruits from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran etc. Surely even the sociopathic commanders and chumps will by now realise this from all of the other wars that have been lost using similar failed strategies. Unless this is their intention to escalate the wars into Pakistan and Iran.

I wonder where Bin Laden is now


I wonder if the US will clean up their destroyed tanks this time instead of leaving them behind like the Soviets.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Soshh
 



We could have negotiated straight after the invasion, but the conditions would have been "piss off out of our country".


That's still the conditions of negotiations.
edit on 19-11-2010 by john124 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


You do realize that ATS has many members from around the globe who post threads from various sources all the time with apposing view points about the US and other places in the world right? This isn't a battle for STARS or a popularity contest.

[No, I wont start referring to myself in the third person. I'm not that self delusional]



If you'd like to understand my take on the topic here is some lite reading. Don't let the thread titles fool you.
Enjoy...

The New Great Game
Iranian revolt Explained - Wake Up!

I wrote this one in the Fall of 2009. It pretty much predicts the actions of 2010.
Marines Engage Al-Qaeda & Taliban Militants



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Bringing in tanks is not a sign of desperation, not even sure how that even led to that conclusion. That be like bringing in the Sherman tanks against Hitlers Panthers. Does that mean its a sign of desperation because we need them that badly? Or its more convenient to have tanks to provide the firepower than to wait for airstrikes which takes alot of time to come and the enemy would take off before the aircraft arrives. Not to mention the tanks long reach to hit the Taliban hidden around the mountains in the distance. Not bringing in the tanks is folly. Canada has brought in their tanks, does that means they are desperate?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


Afghanistan in 2010 isn't 1944 in France.

Since tanks won't bring about the objectives desired the leaders publicly declare, then yes they have failed miserably and have been defeated. Some people will see this now, others have already seen this, and the rest will eventually.

If they really only want to kill a lot of innocents and escalate the wars, then by all means they have succeeded in their aims. But that isn't a success to humanity.

The whole war is desperate in itself.
edit on 20-11-2010 by john124 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


lol You're comparing Afghanistan to WWII tank warfare? Not even close.

I was pondering this situation lately... Canadians are pulling out of Kandahar per our 2011 withdrawal obligations (though Harper has no intention of withdrawing completely as our people want... For like the third time...). Kandahar is the heaviest combat region in Afghanistan. Seems like the US is looking to replace Canadian troop presense with M1 deployments.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I think you misinterpreted my words. If I was bringing in tanks to fight an enemy, does that mean its desperate? We got P51 fighters to take on the tanks, yet we still have to bring in the Sherman tanks. We can just depend on airpower to take on Nazi Germany right?

Besides having tanks at the bases surrounded by mountains gives them the advantage of seeing the enemy far away and hitting them where bullets cannot travel far and quick response where even aircraft cannot match.

edit on 20-11-2010 by deltaboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


I'm sorry but the objective is to remove and kill Taliban and Al Qaeda, not protect the Afghan people because thats just being defensive instead of going on the offensive. Thats the folly of not using airstrikes, tanks, or even rifles because of the dumb politicians who wants to fight a kind war. Pillows only please, but you think the Taliban are listening?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


You're right, I am misinterpreting your words. I completely fail to understand any comparison between the Afghanistan occupation and World War II.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I don't understand your logic. So you're saying we should not use heavy armor? If we have it, and can use it, why not use it? Maybe it will reduce collateral damage by having the firepower on the ground and it being used immediately instead of waiting minutes. Also the firepower is not coming from 25k feet. Doesn't make sense not to use it. If it helps, use it.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Clisen33
 


Soviet tanks in Afghanistan didn't seem to help much. In fact large Soviet convoys only presented more targets along mountain roads.

Only difference here is that M1s require more logistics to operate and they are loaded with DU ammunition. How can you say M1s are effective in Afghanistan when most of the country where the enemy is is only accessible by aircraft or goat trails?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Well with Soviet Gunships coming back to the regions i bet that will bring back a lot of pleasent memories for these people, and why dont they bring the soviet battle tanks as well, i mean the soviet has just as much to lose as the americans in the war against islamic jehad. Soviet gunships/Apache Gunships Abrams M1 / Soviet ???
all join together it would be over in couple days, under the leadership of an Alexader or Patton --->gauranteed.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
you guys wow... the only problem with tanks is that it does not go far enough... we need to kill them all.. reduce the number of people on this planet.. start in the 3rd world and work up.. pretty soon only the first world will be left.. than goes the liberals and tree huggers lol.. I see no problem.. if we took out entire city's and F.Y.I the only reason the russians were taken out was the c.i.a gave them the supply's they needed to win.. they would never have won other wise..



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Reaper2137
 


But they didn't win,, thats the point,, now like i said if they joined forces like they are through u.n well all they should need now is good military leadership, and of course that leadership would have to make sure that all life was sacred, but they won't so who knows they might win anyway.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


... Soviet gunships going back to Afghanistan? Hinds and Apaches side by side? WTF are you talking about?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

didnt you know was in paper somewhere that the Soviet would agree to provide helicopter pilot training again in Afgan. under the U.N or Nato whichever. Take Training to mean whatever u want.
 



edit on 20-11-2010 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
bob they would have lost with out our massive support.. and the russians would have steam rolled them.. lol. on the other hand.. they are losing very very slowly.. unless a major power I.E china or russia are funding them and giving them weapons.. if we find prof that any 3rd world country like iran or pakistan we would bomb the hell out of them and open up a new war...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join